I can't read the full article, but imagine a scenario where countries A and B are competing on building a port in country C.
Country a has good quality work, and bribery is not allowed. Country B does poor quality work and allows bribing. But, since country B engages in bribery, they win the contract. Wouldn't it be better for country A and C if A won the contract by bribing?
Yes, it is the better for the country C, if A wins the contract. However, the people who makes the decision for the country C cares about their bribes; that's what third world politicians, bureaucrats do--get fat bribes for their retirements, investments--because that's the best deal for themselves.
You can see the same phenomenon in large companies even in US: managers find silly projects, and get more head count, then keep expanding the beast, without caring about the large interests of the company.
If there's a 50% chance of A being better than B, then C has a 50% chance of getting the right contractor whether or not A has an anti-bribery law. The benefit to C is that they're likely going to pay less for the port when A has an anti-bribery law since the money for the bribes ultimately comes from the increased price C pays.
I think what you’re describing is a race to the bottom, and I also think a Country A(merica) focused on its soft power would believe Country C could be a part of a multilateral agreement to exclude the practices demonstrated by Country B from competition
I've wondered if fully commercial bribes are a thing. Does company A every pay off the management of company B to "throw the game?"
It happen in the software space for pennies in the US:
Poach the effective members of the competition with lucrative jobs during competitive bid time.
Even easier - take out the decision makers to fancy lunches for a few times to build rapport.
They are probably the most common kind, by far.
Rarely between direct competitors, but between a person sourcing something and the suppliers.
Wouldn’t that just be fraud against the shareholders of company B by the management of company B?
Yeah it would be, and it is more pointed than the other cases people are talking about. But it could happen.
I can't read the full article, but imagine a scenario where countries A and B are competing on building a port in country C.
Country a has good quality work, and bribery is not allowed. Country B does poor quality work and allows bribing. But, since country B engages in bribery, they win the contract. Wouldn't it be better for country A and C if A won the contract by bribing?
Yes, it is the better for the country C, if A wins the contract. However, the people who makes the decision for the country C cares about their bribes; that's what third world politicians, bureaucrats do--get fat bribes for their retirements, investments--because that's the best deal for themselves.
You can see the same phenomenon in large companies even in US: managers find silly projects, and get more head count, then keep expanding the beast, without caring about the large interests of the company.
If there's a 50% chance of A being better than B, then C has a 50% chance of getting the right contractor whether or not A has an anti-bribery law. The benefit to C is that they're likely going to pay less for the port when A has an anti-bribery law since the money for the bribes ultimately comes from the increased price C pays.
I think what you’re describing is a race to the bottom, and I also think a Country A(merica) focused on its soft power would believe Country C could be a part of a multilateral agreement to exclude the practices demonstrated by Country B from competition
Country A no longer believes in the efficacy of soft power.
> Wouldn't it be better for country A and C if A won the contract by bribing?
Wouldn’t it be better for country A and C if A won the contract because bribes were illegal?
Ah yes - the solution to gun violence is everyone carrying a gun.